| OCR Text |
Show Uncle Jack and Wis Hepbew, iro0 4 (The assertion of the authority of the church over temporals in the respect that they are spiritually related, is simply her authority to direct and govern gov-ern them as to their morality. This principle was laid down by Uncle Jack in the conversation with his nephew, and to bring it out more clearly, he quoted from Cardinal Gous-set, Gous-set, archbishop of Rheims. The selection selec-tion from the cardinal's paper begun in our last, is concluded with this installment install-ment of the conversation this week.) CONVERSATION IX. (Continued.) "After having cited the holy scriptures, scrip-tures, the assembly adds: 'We therefore there-fore declare, that king's and sovereigns are subjected by the order of God to no ecclesiastical power in things temporal; tem-poral; that they cannot be deposed, either directly or indirectly, by the authority au-thority of the keys of the church, nor their subjects be absolved from their oath of allegiance.' This consequence, which does not appear to be deduced from the principles set forth, that is from the distinction between the two powers consecrated by scripture, consists con-sists of two parts. The first is, that 'kings and sovereigns are subjected by the order of God to no ecclesiastical authority in things temporal.' This proposition taken literally in all its extent ex-tent is false and erroneous, and cannot be maintained without falling into the error of the modern innovators, which reduces the power of the church to acts purely spiritual and internal; which destroys de-stroys entirely her authority. A Catholic Cath-olic can never admit that those who govern a -kingdom or a republic are subject to no ecclesiastical authority in temporals.'1 In. point of fact, the exercise exer-cise of civil power is itself only a series se-ries of moral actions, and sovereigns may commit offense against morality in those actions which regard the government gov-ernment of the state, as well as in their private actions. Now in all. these actions, ac-tions, which for the most part have for their object temporal things, they are, if Christians, subjected to the church not by reason of the relation of these actions to temporal well-being, but by reason of the relation to eternal eter-nal happiness. (Here is the precise distinction which you ridicule, and sneer at me for making.) What! cannot can-not the church attempt, when she judges it expedient, to arrest by spiritual spir-itual pains the tyrant who oppresses his people? 'Who dare make it a crime in St. Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, that he forbade the Emperor Theodo-sius Theodo-sius to enter the church, and subjected him to public penance for the massacre of Thessalonica, which he had ordered.? But let us rather acknowledge a defect in the compilation of the article, than ascribe to the bishops of the assembly of 16S2 sentiments which they did not hold. Bossuet, who drew up the declaration, dec-laration, says himself, in the discourse which he pronounced at the opening' of the assembly: all . is subjected to the keys, all, both kings and peoples. "'The second part of the conclusion is. that 'kings .and sovereigns cannot be deposed, either directly or indirectly indirect-ly by the keyes of the church, nor their subjects absolved from their oat.i of allegiance.' We remark here that the popes have never pretended to possess pos-sess as temporals, any other than a. spiritual power, and they have used that spiritual power only in favor and on the demand of the people oppressed by the tyranny of their sovereign. Never have they claimed temporal jurisdiction . (un droit reel) over the temporality of kings, which has so many times been. falsely laid to their charge. A pretext for rendering them odious was desired, and ' this was chosen. "There Is no argument, says Fenelon, 'by which critics have incited I a more violent hatred against the au-I au-I thority of the apostolic see, than those which they draw, from the bull Unam Sanctum of Boniface VIII. They allege al-lege that this pope has defined in that bull, that the sovereign pontiff in his quality of universal monarch may give or take away the kingdoms of the earth at his will." But Boniface himself, him-self, against vhom this accusation is brought on. account of his difficulties with Philip the Fair, justifies himself in a discourse before the consistory, and says: 'These forty years we have been versed in the laws, and' have known that there exists two powers ordained or-dained of God. Who then can believe that such a folly, such a madness, ever entered our head?' The cardinals also, in a letter written from Anagni to the dukes, counts and nobility of t ranee, justify the pope in these words: 'We wish you to hold for certain that the sovereign pontiff, our lord, has never written to the said king that he must be subjected to him in the temporal of his kingdom, or that he holds his kingdom king-dom from him.' " "Gerson certainly cannot be accused ac-cused of exaggerating the rights of the papal power; yet he has expressed himself him-self in the same sense. Here are his words: 'It must not be said that kings and princes hold their land and heritage heri-tage from the church, in such sense that the pope has over them a civil and judicial jurisdiction, as some false- 1t ar.r.nca Pnnifarp VTTf of having meant. However, all men, princes and others, are subjected to the pope in so far as they abuse their jurisdiction, or use their temporalities and their sovereignty sover-eignty against the divine and natural law, and this superior power of the pope may be called directive and or-dinative, or-dinative, rather than civil and judicial et potest superiorltas ilia nominari potestas directiva et ordinativa potius quam civilis et juridica. "Indeed, as Feneron again says: 'It was a received principle among Catholic nations, and profoundly engraved en-graved in their hearts, that the, su-1 preme power could be confided only to a Catholic, and that it was a law, or condition of the (tacit) compact between be-tween the people and their prince, that they were bound to obey him only inasmuch in-asmuch as he should obey himself the I Catholic religion. In virtue of this law, i all thought that the nation was absolved ab-solved from its oath of fidelity, when in contempt of this fact the prince turned against religion.' .Yet, lest they might be misled by an illusion, and wishing, besides, to avoid the horrors of civil war, they recurred to the pope the legitimate interpreter 6f the oath, which is a religious act, and of ail pacts considered in their relations to morality and conscience. 'Thus,' adds the immortal archbishop of Cambray, 'the church does not deprive or institute insti-tute lay princes; she simply responds to the people who consults her on a matter mat-ter which'by reason of the oath and the compact touches conscience:' adducing afterwards the example of the first Reneral council of Lyons, in regard to these words of Innocent IV, who declared de-clared the Emperor Frederick II had forfeited the empire: "We declare that all who were bound to him by the oath of fidelity," etc. The same eminent prelate remarks that it is as if the pontiff had said, "We declare the emperor, em-peror, on account of his crimes and impiety, unworthy to govern 'a Catholic Cath-olic people." This is in fact what this pontiff did say himself: Propter suas iniquitates a Deo ne regnet vel, imperet st abjejetus; suis ligatum peccatis et abjectum, omnique honore vel dignitate privatum, a Domino ostendimus. de-nuntiamus, de-nuntiamus, acnihilominus sententiando pronuntiamus. "In fine, the first of the Four Articles Arti-cles terminates by the declaration that the doctrine which it expresses "is necessary to the public tranquility, and not less advantageous to the church than to the state; and that it ought to be inviolably followed as conformed to the word "of God, the tradition of the holy fathers and the example of the saints." Aside., from - the - anathema from which the assembly should have abstained, it is impossible o condemn,' in a manner more express, not merely the opinion X the. doctors who do not happen to think with ie authors of the declaration, but also the acts of the popes and councils who have believed be-lieved that subjects may be released from their oath of allegiance to the princes when they abuse their power, or when Ihe common good of a nation imperatively demands a change of dynasty dy-nasty or government. " 'It is said that the doctrine contained con-tained in the first article is necessary to the public tranquility and the good of the state; but of two things, one, either the supreme power once acquired ac-quired is inadmissable, or it is not. The former hypothesis, although maintained main-tained by some Galilean authors, is evidently evi-dently untenable; it is anti-social, absurd, ab-surd, revolting; no, we can never admit ad-mit that a prince, whoever he may be, may use or abuse the lives and property prop-erty of his subjects with impunity. In the latter case, who is to pronounce on the differences which may arise between be-tween the people and the depositaries of power? Force, you say. But what is there not to fear from the prince, or from the people, when either reigns only in the name of the law of the strongest? As it regards kings, can they seriously believe their crowns in danger, because the vicar of Jesus Christ recalls them to their duties and to their oaths? There is no middle course. It is necessary, either that they be absolutely independent in the exercise of their power, which can be asserted, after God, only of the church, because she, and she only, nas the .promise of God himself; or, renouncing renounc-ing the intervention of the spiritual power, that they depend on their subjects. sub-jects. But, in this latter case, what is to be expected? Bossuet, who drew up the article in question, chall answer: an-swer: "It is clearer than the light of day," says he. "that, if it is necessary to compare the two opinions, that which subjects temporal sovereigns to the pope (in the sense we have just explained ex-plained it), and that which subjects their power to the people, in whom predominate pre-dominate passion, caprice, ignorance and wratch, the latter would be unquestionably un-questionably the most to be deplored. Experience has shown this in our own age, which has offered us among those who have abandoned their sovereigns to the caprices of the multitude more and more tragical examples against the persons of kings, than can be found during 600 or 700 years among the nations na-tions who on this point have, recognized recog-nized the authority of Rome." We cite this passage from Bossuet simply to show, in view of the impossibility of asserting the absolute independence of sovereigns or those who govern, Jthat Louis XIV had no cause for provoking the declaration of 1S62, and that the bishops of Fiatiit4 had no reason for conceding him what he asked.' " "I have listened, my dear uncle," with both my ears, but I do not see any I practical difference between the doc-j doc-j trine of Cardinal Gousset and that of M. Gosselin, which I understand you to reject," said Nephew Dick. ! (To be continued.) |
